Tariffs

[TimFox]

If you read the history of American monetary policy, you will find that sometimes the Fed policy on its own, in hindsight, was counterproductive (e.g. 1930), but other times, bowing to political influence from the president, it accelerated the economy before an election, causing inflation (e.g. under Nixon).
The foundation of the Federal Reserve system in 1913, after several financial “panics” (as we used to call them) carefully made its function independent of the President.  Some Presidents have found that annoying.

[u666sa]

Don't you guys classify items shipped with BTN numbers and describe them so that it falls under the given category? Even then the goons at customs can simply classify the item based on the outside appearance and the most taxable BTN number, I guess.

Well. Seeing the system in Russia, it is much more transperant over there. Customs gets a direct link to the item on aliexpress or alibaba or whatever else. So they can see what it is.

MOST customs checks are automatic, person is not going through every single item, only those items that are red flagged by the system.

[Zero999]

Now you are confusing the sort of forced biases you have with the natural tendency to err one way a bit but not actually go out looking for misinformation.

Are you addressing me?

How does one deliberately go about seeking misinformation? And quite often it's very difficult to tell whether something is true of false. Sometimes what's generally widely believed to be true, later turns out to be false.

Or are you merely talking about seeking sources of information which confirms my bias? I admit I'm guilty of that to some extent. No doubt the same applies to most people, but thik it's subconscious, rather than deliberate. When I'm looking at articles on news sites and videos, I click on ones I'm interested in, which is governed by my biases. Being human means, I'm more likely to take seriously things which back up my biases, rather than go against them and yes, unfortunately that means some of it will be false . It's very difficult to avoid this. It's part being human. Anyone who claims they never do this is either lying, or unaware of it.

[Sorama]

Now you are confusing the sort of forced biases you have with the natural tendency to err one way a bit but not actually go out looking for misinformation.

Are you addressing me?

How does one deliberately go about seeking misinformation? And quite often it's very difficult to tell whether something is true of false. Sometimes what's generally widely believed to be true, later turns out to be false.

Or are you merely talking about seeking sources of information which confirms my bias? I admit I'm guilty of that to some extent. No doubt the same applies to most people, but thik it's subconscious, rather than deliberate. When I'm looking at articles on news sites and videos, I click on ones I'm interested in, which is governed by my biases. Being human means, I'm more likely to take seriously things which back up my biases, rather than go against them and yes, unfortunately that means some of it will be false . It's very difficult to avoid this. It's part being human. Anyone who claims they never do this is either lying, or unaware of it.

You’re doing it again…

[Analog Kid]

Or are you merely talking about seeking sources of information which confirms my bias? I admit I'm guilty of that to some extent. No doubt the same applies to most people, but thik it's subconscious, rather than deliberate. When I'm looking at articles on news sites and videos, I click on ones I'm interested in, which is governed by my biases. Being human means, I'm more likely to take seriously things which back up my biases, rather than go against them and yes, unfortunately that means some of it will be false . It's very difficult to avoid this. It's part being human. Anyone who claims they never do this is either lying, or unaware of it.

Without wanting to overly prolong this particular philosophical tangent here:
Yes, what you write about unconscious biases is true.

But consider this: If you ever think of it, it would be useful for you (for anyone, really) to consciously select sources or stories that don't conform to your biases. In other words, intentionally seek out information that may go against your biases, in order to broaden your perspective. Doesn't mean you have to accept their conclusions, but exposing yourself to things outside of your "echo chamber" would be a Good Thing.

Now back to tariffs ...

[tszaboo]

Now you are confusing the sort of forced biases you have with the natural tendency to err one way a bit but not actually go out looking for misinformation.

Are you addressing me?

How does one deliberately go about seeking misinformation? And quite often it's very difficult to tell whether something is true of false. Sometimes what's generally widely believed to be true, later turns out to be false.

Or are you merely talking about seeking sources of information which confirms my bias? I admit I'm guilty of that to some extent. No doubt the same applies to most people, but thik it's subconscious, rather than deliberate. When I'm looking at articles on news sites and videos, I click on ones I'm interested in, which is governed by my biases. Being human means, I'm more likely to take seriously things which back up my biases, rather than go against them and yes, unfortunately that means some of it will be false . It's very difficult to avoid this. It's part being human. Anyone who claims they never do this is either lying, or unaware of it.

We all are, unless we start applying some general common sense to the information we get.
To give you a few example:
If a russian is talking about anything other than how miserable things are, they are lying 90% of the time.
If CNN or other MSM talks about Trump, they are going to leave out information, omit important details, or just repeat lies that were handed to them to read out loud. Then they get sued, and have to settle for millions of dollars. They will repeat all the hoaxes that are widespread, and call everything else "dangerous misinformation". And when they turn out to be wrong about said facts, we get no apology no correction, often times they just double down.
Fox probably lies half the time when they are talking about the issues, but they are doing it in a way where there is a grain of truth in it after all. You have to be very selective on what they are saying anyway.

And listening to both sides blindly doesn't work anyway. All you get is double the fake news. What's the point to listen to something if you know the source is some biased propaganda machine?
Also the worst thing is using social media as the arbiter of truth. Or experts that are motivated to lie to you.

Look for intent. Why do they want to tell you something. Look for pissed off people, who want to improve things, and really improve, not just to virtue signal.

[tggzzz]

Now you are confusing the sort of forced biases you have with the natural tendency to err one way a bit but not actually go out looking for misinformation.

Are you addressing me?

How does one deliberately go about seeking misinformation? And quite often it's very difficult to tell whether something is true of false. Sometimes what's generally widely believed to be true, later turns out to be false.

Or are you merely talking about seeking sources of information which confirms my bias? I admit I'm guilty of that to some extent. No doubt the same applies to most people, but thik it's subconscious, rather than deliberate. When I'm looking at articles on news sites and videos, I click on ones I'm interested in, which is governed by my biases. Being human means, I'm more likely to take seriously things which back up my biases, rather than go against them and yes, unfortunately that means some of it will be false . It's very difficult to avoid this. It's part being human. Anyone who claims they never do this is either lying, or unaware of it.

We all are, unless we start applying some general common sense to the information we get.
To give you a few example:
If a russian is talking about anything other than how miserable things are, they are lying 90% of the time.
If CNN or other MSM talks about Trump, they are going to leave out information, omit important details, or just repeat lies that were handed to them to read out loud. Then they get sued, and have to settle for millions of dollars. They will repeat all the hoaxes that are widespread, and call everything else "dangerous misinformation". And when they turn out to be wrong about said facts, we get no apology no correction, often times they just double down.
Fox probably lies half the time when they are talking about the issues, but they are doing it in a way where there is a grain of truth in it after all. You have to be very selective on what they are saying anyway.

And listening to both sides blindly doesn't work anyway. All you get is double the fake news. What's the point to listen to something if you know the source is some biased propaganda machine?
Also the worst thing is using social media as the arbiter of truth. Or experts that are motivated to lie to you.

Look for intent. Why do they want to tell you something. Look for pissed off people, who want to improve things, and really improve, not just to virtue signal.

S/CNN/ Faux News/
S/MSM/Truth Social | social media/

[Zero999]

Now you are confusing the sort of forced biases you have with the natural tendency to err one way a bit but not actually go out looking for misinformation.

Are you addressing me?

How does one deliberately go about seeking misinformation? And quite often it's very difficult to tell whether something is true of false. Sometimes what's generally widely believed to be true, later turns out to be false.

Or are you merely talking about seeking sources of information which confirms my bias? I admit I'm guilty of that to some extent. No doubt the same applies to most people, but thik it's subconscious, rather than deliberate. When I'm looking at articles on news sites and videos, I click on ones I'm interested in, which is governed by my biases. Being human means, I'm more likely to take seriously things which back up my biases, rather than go against them and yes, unfortunately that means some of it will be false . It's very difficult to avoid this. It's part being human. Anyone who claims they never do this is either lying, or unaware of it.

You’re doing it again…

Doing what exactly?

[Analog Kid]

S/CNN/ Faux News/
S/MSM/Truth Social | social media/

We can certainly see where your biases lie, can't we?
Unbiased here? Sheesh.

And of course all social media deserves to be tarred with that same brush, right?

You don't think CNN/MSNBC/NYT/WaPo/NPR/PBS, et al, are biased? Just a teensy weensy bit?

[PlainName]

Then they get sued, and have to settle for millions of dollars.

It's not safe to read anything into that. Some people use lawsuits to browbeat their opponent into submission - see SLAPPs. News media has to figure not just how much defending the suit will cost, but what may happen to them afterwards. Recall that Trump has already gone after lawyers and their companies that were engaged by his opposition. Also recall that Trump stiffed AP because they didn't use 'Gulf of America' (because they are international and it is still Gulf of Mexico to RoW). And that's a minor thing!

News media may reckon that keeping Trump sweet (at least until he loses power) is the sensible course at the moment, and just cough up to make the suit go away and let him feel he won. Certainly, the worst thing to do would be to make him think he lost.

[Analog Kid]

Also recall that Trump stiffed AP because they didn't use 'Gulf of America' (because they are international and it is still Gulf of Mexico to RoW).

And it'll (hopefully) revert back to the Gulf of Mexico in, oh, 3 years or so.

If it doesn't, that'll be a tragedy of epic proportions.
Because that great song, The Band's "Up on Cripple Creek", will be totally bent out of shape:

   When I get off of this mountain, you know where I want to go?
   Straight down the Mississippi River to the Gulf of Mexico.
   In Lake Charles, Lousiana, lives a Bessie girl I once knew,
   She said just come on down if there's anything she can do.

Oh, the humanity!

["Lousiana" intentionally misspelt, 'cause that's the way it's pronounced here]

[Sorama]

Now you are confusing the sort of forced biases you have with the natural tendency to err one way a bit but not actually go out looking for misinformation.

Are you addressing me?

How does one deliberately go about seeking misinformation? And quite often it's very difficult to tell whether something is true of false. Sometimes what's generally widely believed to be true, later turns out to be false.

Or are you merely talking about seeking sources of information which confirms my bias? I admit I'm guilty of that to some extent. No doubt the same applies to most people, but thik it's subconscious, rather than deliberate. When I'm looking at articles on news sites and videos, I click on ones I'm interested in, which is governed by my biases. Being human means, I'm more likely to take seriously things which back up my biases, rather than go against them and yes, unfortunately that means some of it will be false . It's very difficult to avoid this. It's part being human. Anyone who claims they never do this is either lying, or unaware of it.

You’re doing it again…

Doing what exactly?

You know damn well.

[tszaboo]

Then they get sued, and have to settle for millions of dollars.

It's not safe to read anything into that. Some people use lawsuits to browbeat their opponent into submission - see SLAPPs. News media has to figure not just how much defending the suit will cost, but what may happen to them afterwards. Recall that Trump has already gone after lawyers and their companies that were engaged by his opposition. Also recall that Trump stiffed AP because they didn't use 'Gulf of America' (because they are international and it is still Gulf of Mexico to RoW). And that's a minor thing!

News media may reckon that keeping Trump sweet (at least until he loses power) is the sensible course at the moment, and just cough up to make the suit go away and let him feel he won. Certainly, the worst thing to do would be to make him think he lost.

Sure. They sound like the guys who fold in poker, and immediately go on a rant why they were going to win.

[PlainName]

Then they get sued, and have to settle for millions of dollars.

It's not safe to read anything into that. Some people use lawsuits to browbeat their opponent into submission - see SLAPPs. News media has to figure not just how much defending the suit will cost, but what may happen to them afterwards. Recall that Trump has already gone after lawyers and their companies that were engaged by his opposition. Also recall that Trump stiffed AP because they didn't use 'Gulf of America' (because they are international and it is still Gulf of Mexico to RoW). And that's a minor thing!

News media may reckon that keeping Trump sweet (at least until he loses power) is the sensible course at the moment, and just cough up to make the suit go away and let him feel he won. Certainly, the worst thing to do would be to make him think he lost.

Sure. They sound like the guys who fold in poker, and immediately go on a rant why they were going to win.

I have no idea how you managed to work that one out, but suffice to say it isn't like that at all. I suggest you follow the SLAPPs link because it seems that you don't know that forcing your opponent to capitulate through their lack of resources to fight back - regardless of the merits of the case - is a thing.

Back to tariffs - this is pretty much what Trump is trying to do with those. See, for instance, Brazil recently.

[TimFox]

Note that trade with Brazil actually shows a modest surplus in favor of the US.
That extreme tariff proposal is strictly political, with a personal bias in favor of an alleged insurrectionist.
It seems to have improved the political standing of the incumbent, disliked by Trump, in a common reaction from nations who feel bullied.

[vk6zgo]

S/CNN/ Faux News/
S/MSM/Truth Social | social media/

We can certainly see where your biases lie, can't we?
Unbiased here? Sheesh.

And of course all social media deserves to be tarred with that same brush, right?

You don't think CNN/MSNBC/NYT/WaPo/NPR/PBS, et al, are biased? Just a teensy weensy bit?

It is quite hard to maintain a bias over multiple independent sources than it is to do so in an organisation which owns multiple outlets.
After all, they are (mostly) businesses at the end of the day.

In Australia, if the ABC says something they don't like, a certain demographic will waste endless time, paper & bandwidth to bashing them, despite the same information appearing on the 7, 9, & 10 Networks!

If they are all saying the same thing, is it evidence of a huge, unwieldy, conspiracy, or perhaps fairly close to the truth?

If a subscription service like SkyNews says something different are they bravely confronting a "world-wide conspiracy" or catering to the leanings of their subscribers?

[Analog Kid]

It is quite hard to maintain a bias over multiple independent sources  [...]

Welll, that raises an interesting question: are they really independent?
No, I'm not trying to nudge you towards a conspiratorial conclusion that there is some nefarious, hidden, cabalistic connection between news organizations. That they're controlled by the Illumanati or the Bildebergers or whatever.

Except for the fact that they do sometimes behave as if there is such a connection, almost as if they were secretly sharing talking points or significant chunks of content.

We saw a lot of that last summer during Biden's meltdowns and the media's strenuous efforts to assure us that he was still "sharp as a tack". It was uncanny to see the same phrases, the same talking points, practically the same articles appearing across multiple outlets, most of which could be traced back to the White House or the DNC. So that does happen.

[vad]

u don't think CNN/MSNBC/NYT/WaPo/NPR/PBS, et al, are biased? Just a teensy weensy bit?

Yeah, these bastards always lie, unlike Murdoch’s Fox and WSJ, which always tell the truth. Ouch, wait a second…

[wilfred]

If a subscription service like SkyNews says something different are they bravely confronting a "world-wide conspiracy" or catering to the leanings of their subscribers?

Catering, or pandering is how I would say it. If they have a reliable bolted-on undiscriminating audience and they dish out what the audience wants to hear there is nothing brave about it.

[PlainName]

It was uncanny to see the same phrases, the same talking points, practically the same articles appearing across multiple outlets, most of which could be traced back to the White House or the DNC

If they're all talking the same news (that is, whatever the White House is pushing) then they're likely saying the same thing. Additionally, they use pool reporters for many things, so the source and possibly copy will be the same for all participating outlets.

You probably want to differentiate news and opinion, though. News is basically repeating what the White House says; opinion is going on about how great or what a load of tripe it is. Opinion is likely very biased, whereas news shouldn't be, and they are both put out by the same outlet.

[Sorama]

The  problem was never the so called bias from the media, but the inability of people to distinguish right from wrong.
Their non working moral compass.
Like being color blind.
However, being color blind is something that happened to you, not your own choice (born with).

But being stupid is a choice.

[Analog Kid]

u don't think CNN/MSNBC/NYT/WaPo/NPR/PBS, et al, are biased? Just a teensy weensy bit?

Yeah, these bastards always lie, unlike Murdoch’s Fox and WSJ, which always tell the truth. Ouch, wait a second…

You're missing the point. They're all biased.

[tszaboo]

Then they get sued, and have to settle for millions of dollars.

It's not safe to read anything into that. Some people use lawsuits to browbeat their opponent into submission - see SLAPPs. News media has to figure not just how much defending the suit will cost, but what may happen to them afterwards. Recall that Trump has already gone after lawyers and their companies that were engaged by his opposition. Also recall that Trump stiffed AP because they didn't use 'Gulf of America' (because they are international and it is still Gulf of Mexico to RoW). And that's a minor thing!

News media may reckon that keeping Trump sweet (at least until he loses power) is the sensible course at the moment, and just cough up to make the suit go away and let him feel he won. Certainly, the worst thing to do would be to make him think he lost.

Sure. They sound like the guys who fold in poker, and immediately go on a rant why they were going to win.

I have no idea how you managed to work that one out, but suffice to say it isn't like that at all. I suggest you follow the SLAPPs link because it seems that you don't know that forcing your opponent to capitulate through their lack of resources to fight back - regardless of the merits of the case - is a thing.

Back to tariffs - this is pretty much what Trump is trying to do with those. See, for instance, Brazil recently.

Your link is completely irrelevant to the situation and this is not what is happening.
What is happening is this:
1. They fabricate some claims.
2. Sue Trump
3. Trump takes it to court, and wins it
4. They still keep on repeating the claims
5. They get sued and have to settle for millions

Maybe the counter suing is questionable or immoral, but me personally couldn't care less. If an institution is corrupted and evil they deserve to be prosecuted or taken apart to the fullest extent of the law.

[krish2487]

Maybe the counter suing is questionable or immoral, but me personally couldn't care less. If an institution is corrupted and evil they deserve to be prosecuted or taken apart to the fullest extent of the law.

Yes...
1. deporting thousands of people (in some cases citizens and residents of US)
2. weaponizing the govt to go after enemies of one individual
3. shielding the rich and powerful from prosecution by claiming there is no epstein list (possibly the incumbent incumbent too)
4. levying tariffs as a way to force allies to bend down to your will
5. imposing a fascist rule and overriding democracy
6. holding a army parade to satisfy your ego
7. backing a known invading nation, doubling down and then backtracking on your words
8. playing footsie with known other dictators around the world

does not sound like an corrupt or evil organization at all..
smh...

[tszaboo]

Maybe the counter suing is questionable or immoral, but me personally couldn't care less. If an institution is corrupted and evil they deserve to be prosecuted or taken apart to the fullest extent of the law.

Yes...
1. deporting thousands of people

https://youtu.be/qLAJZWRHrNA?si=Kgyebj18CT4V0JXe
BTW when you called him following a mid 20 century Italian socialis politics, you lot the argument.